Windows XP The Next Great Thing or Not?

Great Debates
61

Okay then, this is what I want to know…

Why should a consumer who has purchased WinXP for his own personal, non-profit use, be allowed to install it on all his personally owned computers without purchasing an extra license? In my mind, when I purchase something, I have every right to do anything I want with it that does not result in profit. Therefore, I should have every right to install it on every computer that I own. However, WPA eliminates this, as I understand it.

Can you explain to me why when I purchase a copy of WinXP, I don’t have the right to use it on all of my machines? Why should I have to purchase separate licenses for each machine that I use it on? Hell, it’s my property after purchase, not theirs.

–Tim

62

Homer, I actually agree with you about this. However, legally, you only own the CD that the information is on. The producing company owns intellectual property rights on the code they develop, and therefore are allowed to set whatever terms of use they want in their license agreements. Break those terms of use, and legally, you’re not allowed to use the product anymore.

Is this right? I don’t think so. It’s just companies grabbing for money.

63

Oh, one more thing…it’s because many people think like Homer that open-source has become pretty popular.

64

The simplest, most basic answer is thusly: Install it on more than one machine, you wind up with more than one copy.

65

Homer, read the license. You do not own the software. All you have purchased is the license to use it under the terms the licensor sets. They can limit the number of machines and they could impose other limits like they could limit it in time and say the license is good for a year. I see nothing wrong with this. I do not think it is reasonable for me to pay the same as a company who is going to install it on 2000 computers.

66

Spoofe, you are incorrect. I have a single copy which is being used on two separate machines. Until I create a hard copy on CD, I only have one copy of that information. Semantics. :slight_smile:

sailor, read what I wrote. A company will receive indirect profit from installing it on 2000 machines. I will receive no profit, direct or indirect, from installing it on my three machines. I agree that the moment that I profit from having multiple installations of my copy, I owe the company for each iteration. Until then, however, I don’t owe them anything more than a warm turd.

Regardless of what the law believes, I own the CD and everything on it. I purchased it. The law is often wrong, that is why I often ignore it.

–Tim

67

Well, not really semantics. It’s more a matter of looking at things. The product you payed for the right to use is not only the hardware, but the software that’s installed on the machine. If you use a single piece of hardware to install the software on two machines, you end up with two different copies of the software, when you only paid for one.

68

>> The law is often wrong, that is why I often ignore it

Well, if you feel you have the right to make your own laws, then you should not complain when others do the same and steal from you or shoot you. They are doing the same thing you are doing: deciding what laws should be followed and which ones can be ignored.

I for one cannot see the profit thing. You are allowed to steal as long as you don’t profit? Besides that you are already profitting by not paying for what you stole, why would this be so? It makes no sense to me. Maybe to you it does but not to me.

69

Would it be okay to steal a $90,000 Porsche, while leaving enough cash behind to pay for the raw materials and assembly-line costs? That is probably less than a quarter of the retail price.

I mean hey, the company hasn’t lost anything, right? They got back the money it cost to build it, afterall.

The bottom line is that someone spent time and money to research and develop that car, just like software, and they deserve the right to set a price for it. You have NO right to step around that. It’s their property until you purchase it by meeting their conditions of sale. In the case of software, music, and other intellectual property, the main condition is that you do not reproduce it on your own and give it or sell it to others, or use more copies for yourself than the contract you agreed to allows.

Anyone who violates this is a thief. period. You can wrap your actions up in as much hacker ethic crap as you want, but it only helps to mask the fact that you are no better than the punk who breaks into a store and steals things.

70

Homer, MS has a product and they are free to grant you any rights to it under whatever conditions they see fit and you as a consumer can accept them or take your business elsewhere. Laws aside, when you buy their product you enter into a contract and you are not keeping your end of the bargain. If you do not like the terms the answer is to get Linux or some other product you like better.

It is ironic that MS is precisely doing this because of people like you who believe they can set their own rules. In the end we are all inconvenienced and pay the price for people who believe rules do not apply to them.

71

BTW Homer, I’ve seen you describe yourself as a Libertarian. That’s especially shocking considering your attitude. The first principle of Libertarianism is that the person who creates wealth has a right to dispose of it as he sees fit, which includes licensing its use. You clearly don’t understand the basic principles of the philosophy you claim to uphold.

72

Wow, how quickly we turn. When did I ever mention shooting people and stealing cars? If I purchase a program, I have the right to use that program in any way I see fit as long as it does not result in profit. Period. If I purchase a copy of WinME, I have the right to use it however I see fit. If this means installing it on three home machines, so be it. I’m not going to buy a second and third copy of a product that I do not need.

You cannot sell someone a product and then regulate how they use it. Once it has been paid for, it is theirs to do anything they want with, and the company has no say-so any longer. It is bought and received and all rights transferred to the new owner.

If I purchase a car, I have every right to acquire the materials necessary to make an exact reproduction of said car without paying for a second car. I cannot sell this second car as if it were the original, because it is not. If I buy a book, I have every right to copy this book for my own personal use as many times as I want. I purchased the information, and can use it however I want. I cannot sell a copy of this book, because it is not the original book.

How is stealing a Porsche even related tangentially to the conversation? I have purchased software and used secondary copies for my personal use with no moral or ethical conflicts for years. Is it ‘wrong’ to make a copy of a CD to use in your car, and keep the original in your home? Why, if this is acceptable, is it wrong to use the same copy of software on two machines?

sailor, are you ESL? I do not see how you would have such trouble understanding my position that you would make such wild, unfounded claims. Using secondary or tertiary copies of intellectual property for your own non-profit use is not theft if the original was bought and paid for.

Steps taken by Microsoft, while they do relate to anti-piracy, are just as greedy as the pirates themselves. Microsoft would not lose a single penny if they did not incorporate WPA into their programs for the simple fact that a person who will pirate software will not pay for it if it is not available for piracy, and a person who is inclined to purchase a product will still do so even if the pirated version is possible. I realize there are exceptions to this case, but I do not believe that limiting piracy would show an absolute increase in legitimate sales by the company. If a person is inclined to theft, they will steal. If a person is disinclined to theft, they will not steal. While anti-piracy measures may hinder the pirates, it will not stop them. The end result of anti-piracy measures are inconvenience for legitimate customers, and nothing more.

I am a Libertarian however I may disagree on some pretenses of the philosophy. That is not hypocritical nor does it restrict my ability to claim my alliance with the philosophy. How many Democrats buy the party line on everything? How many Republicans? How many Christians? How many Muslims? Sweet Christ. Is there no ability to disagree? And regardless of my dissention with pure libertarianism, there is no reason for such a gratuitous slam as claiming that I ‘clearly don’t understand’ the basic principals of my own political philosophy.

This is how I see it: You cannot ‘license’ anything. A sale of any intellectual property in any form, be it software, music, movie, or whatever, is thereby the complete property of the purchaser. The purchaser has every right to do anything with said property that he sees fit as long as it does not result in profit for himself. If this means using it on three of his computers, than it means he uses it on three of his computers. He cannot, however, sell his copies, nor can he sell the original and retain the copies. Relenquishing or acquiring rights to property, intellectual or physical, gives you the right to use said property in any manner you see fit. How many times do I have to repeat this? This is not morally or ethically wrong, and while it may violate certain laws, that means that the laws are fundamentally flawed and steps should be taken to correct them. Anything more or less is purely greed on either side, either the seller or the purchaser. You cannot dictate the manner in which a product to which you no longer have rights is used.

–Tim

73

Homer, the point is you have not purchased a program, rather you have purchased the license to use the program under the conditions set forth in the license. I know you do not want to understand this

Now I know at this point I am not going to change your mind but the point is that the law sees it the way I see it, not the way you see it. You may not like the law but we do not get to pick and choose which laws we like to abide by.

The rest of society has decided they see things one way and you have decided to be antisocial and not to abide by a law which you do not like. People who make a living making software would have an issue with you and so do other customers who have to pay higher prices to compensate for people like you who do not pay their share.

Do not complain then if someone else decides not to respect other laws they do not like even if it results in harm to you. What goes around comes around.

74

Wrong-O. Absolutely incorrect.

When you install almost any piece of software, there’s a little “License Agreement” window. It asks you if you agree to the License, and there are two buttons: “Yes” and “No”. If you click on “Yes”, you agree to the license and the program installs. If you click on “No”, you don’t agree to the license and the program doesn’t install.

Have you ever read this license agreement? In full? I seriously doubt it.

75

Incorrect, sailor, society has not decided that this is the method of ownership and use of software, business has decided this. Business is not society. Society, if we judge by the amount of casual piracy that takes place every day, has decided, by large, that the method I operate by is correct. Business simply retains control of the methods of ownership because America has become a business-police state, not a federal republic. If America still operated as a federalist republic, things would likely operate by my methods.

As for people having to pay higher prices, that’s simply not true. Price increases are driven by corporate greed under the guise of covering for perceived losses by piracy. Until a business shows a true, proven loss to piracy, and they never will, any price increases are arguably simple corporate greed. As for my not paying my ‘share’, I have paid my share by legally obtaining my copy. Nothing would convince me to purchase the same program twice. If I were not allowed, by physical restraint, to use my copy of whatever OS I have purchased on all my machines at once, I would simply use an older version that I had also previously purchased. I do not and will not purchase something twice when I have no necessity for a second. You have not answered my music question: Why do you not feel it wrong to keep a copy of your CDs in your car while leaving the originals at home? This is ‘fair use’, is it not? How is my installing my copy of whatever on my two or three machines not ALSO fair use? What is the division?

Actually, SPOOFE, I have read the agreements in full. I admit I normally roll my eyes and click-through, but I have read a great many all the way through.

As for my being incorrect, you are using circular logic. Why is what I do wrong? Because it is against the law. Why is it against the law? Because it is wrong. You are incorrect, not I. It is against the law because corporations, specifically Microsoft, have ‘encouraged’ lawmakers to make this illegal. Law should not be based on ‘special interest’ but 1) preserving the safety and well being of it’s citizens, not corporations, and 2) encouraging it’s citizens to follow moral and ethical standards. Moral and ethical standards. Not business standards.

Call me crazy, call me immoral, call me unethical, call me paranoid, but I’m not any of those… except maybe crazy.

–Tim

76

Again, incorrect (gee, this is becoming a common occurrence). It is against the law because there are laws protecting intellectual property.

Rubbish. Intellectual property has been protected for a long time. It has NOTHING to do with corporations “encouraging” lawmakers. It’s a simple matter of common sense.

Further, what does it matter WHY the law was passed? The simple fact is that, yes, it IS against the law for you to copy a product which you don’t have the right to copy.

  1. The property of its citizens are being protected by the law.

  2. It is immoral and unethical to use property that isn’t yours in a matter that isn’t allowed.

See, Homer, m’boy, you need to understand one thing… Windows is Microsoft’s property. You may look at that cute, shiny, little CD and think, “Gee whiz, this is MINE!” Unfortunately, the software contained on that CD is NOT yours. It belongs to Microsoft, and no amount of whining, complaining, or “It belongs to everybody!” crap will change that.

Microsoft has the right - just like every other entity - to dictate how their property will be used. And Microsoft says, “You get one copy.”

I wouldn’t call you any of that. I’ll simply say that you’re ignorant of the law.

77

If the law is not enforced then it has no meaning. Microsoft has the right to dictate how its property is used, but if they don’t enforce what they dictate then the what they dictate doesen’t matter. Microsoft will never go after users like Homer because they rightly don’t want to make the average person fear them. It would probably be suicide for Microsoft if they tried to actually enforce what they dictate through lawsuits and what not.

78

Irrelevant, but true. That’s why Microsoft is trying to increase the copy protection security. And it’s this increased security that Homer seems to have taken exception with.

79

Spoofe, you continue to ignore fair use. Why is this not considered fair use? I will address your remaining issues when you address this single one.

Oh, and by the way, I am far from ignorant of the law. It’s just that the current structure of the law is fatally flawed. Therefore, it is not possible to debate this issue using current intellectual property laws as a cite. We are both very aware of what the law states. I am obviously not arguing using the law as a basis. Why do you continue to do so? This is an intellectual/moralistic issue, not an issue of law. It is a debate of what should be, not what is.

–Tim

80

I do not see a point in continuing this debate if you insist on answering my assertions that “the law is wrong because” with refutations of “no, you are wrong, the law states.” I am MORE than willing do continue the debate, but it simply has no logical end using this method. Please create logical refutations without using law as a cite, because my basic premise is that the law is flawed, and you cannot use what is assumed by one party to be flawed as a cite. This debate, at the moment, is like an athiest debating a fundie, and all the fundie’s refutations begin with “well, the Bible says…” Do you see my point?

–Tim